Measures

All the measures used in the original publications of this dissertation research are reported below. The measures used in this research were either developed for the INPRES and/or InterProF projects or taken directly (or with modifications) from existing scales, as described below. For the sake of brevity and considering the divergent samples used in the present research, the descriptives such as Cronbach alphas of all scales used are presented in the original publications I-V in which they have been used. With few exceptions, the reliability of the measures used was high, ranging from .52 to .96.

Contact with Finns (quality) (Study II). To measure the quality of contact in the pre-migration stage, a single item (i.e., “How pleasant or unpleasant would you evaluate the contacts with the Finnish nationals you have had” 1. “in Finland or in Russia?” (Study II) or 2. “during the recruitment process” (Study IV)) was used based on Islam and Hewstone’s (1993) and Tausch, Hewstone, Kenworthy, Cairns, and Christ’s (2007) measures of the quality of contact with outgroup members. Participants were asked to evaluate whether their prior contact with Finnish nationals was generally pleasant or unpleasant on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = very unpleasant to 5 = very pleasant, with the sixth option being “I’ve never been in contact with Finnish nationals.” The sixth option was omitted from the scale.

Social networks in Finland (quantity) (Studies I, II and III). Single-item questions were used to assess the size of social networks of potential migrants in Finland. The participants were asked to rate on a five-point scale (0 = none to 5 = ten or more) the size of their Finnish national networks in Finland, i.e., close Finnish friends and relatives living in Finland (Studies I, II and III). In addition, in Study I, the same scale was used to assess the number of participants’ close Russian friends and relatives already living in Finland.

Expected discrimination (Study II). Two pre-existing measures of perceived discrimination (Schmitt, Spears, & Branscombe, 2003; Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, & Solheim 2009) were adapted to measure anticipated discrimination in the pre-migration context of Finnish (re)migration. All four items (e.g., “I feel Finns will accept my foreign background”) were

rated on a five-point scale (1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating more expected discrimination.

Perceived discrimination (Study I). To measure whether participants had faced discrimination in Russia, a single-item question was used: “Have you (ever) been insulted, faced name- calling or been in other ways discriminated against because of your ethnic background in Russia?” The respondents answered this questions using a five-point scale (1 = never to 5 = very often).

SES (Study II). As income or material standard of living have been shown to be better markers of increased rates of mental disorders than occupational social class (Fryers et al., 2003) socioeconomic status was assessed by asking participants to indicate their monthly family income (after taxation, with response options ranging from 1 = less than 3,000 rubles (i.e., approximately 70 euros) to 8 = more than 30,000 rubles (i.e., approximately 700 euros)). Duration of pre-acculturation process (Study II). Participants were asked when they submitted the application for repatriate status. Pre-acculturation time was then counted by subtracting the time since submitting application for immigration from the time of the study. Prior knowledge of Finland/Cognitive preparedness (Studies I and II). The participants were asked, on a five-point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very much), how much they knew about life in Finland (eight items assessing e.g., financial issues, legislation, culture, and working). In addition, in Study II, participants were also asked how much they knew about immigration- related challenges (with two items assessing psychological demands posed by immigration and adaptation). The higher scores indicated better cognitive preparedness.

Finnish language proficiency (Studies I and II). Four items were used to evaluate participants’ level of proficiency in the Finnish language, specifically their ability to understand, read, speak and write in Finnish. Participants answered on a five-point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very well), with higher scores indicating better proficiency in Finnish.

Previous visits to Finland (Study III). Familiarity with Finland prior to migration was assessed by asking participants if they had ever visited Finland, and, if so, the number of visits. The variable Previous visits to Finland was coded into two categories (0 = no previous visits, 1 = previously visited).

Previous international work experience (Study IV). A single question was used to assess the number of times participants had worked abroad prior to the current assignment. The response options ranged from 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = 2 to 3 times, 3 = 4 to 5 times, 4 = 6 to 10 times, 5 = 11 or more times to 6 = always.

Expected duration of adaptation (Study II). Expectations concerning the anticipated time of adaptation in Finland after migration were assessed by a single-item measure: “How long time do you think your adaptation in Finland will take?” with response options ranging from 1 = less than a month to 7 = longer than 5 years, and 8 = I do not think I will ever adapt in Finland.

Psychological well-being (Studies I, II, and IV). To measure participants’ subjective physical, mental and emotional health statuses prior to migration, the General well-being index (GWBI) by Hunt and McKenna (1992) was used. The 22-item measure contained three dimensions (see Gaston & Vogl, 2005): general mood/affect (13 items; e.g., “Have you felt in firm control of your actions, thoughts or feelings?”), life satisfaction (6 items; e.g., “Has your daily life been filled with things that interest you?”), and physical health (3 items; e.g., “Have you felt tired, worn out or exhausted?”). Participants responded on a five-point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very much), with higher scores indicating better well-being. In Study I, three different dimensions of general well-being were used, whereas in Studies II and IV, the responses to these subscales were combined into a single score.

Pre-acculturative stress/Relocation stress (Studes II and IV). Pre-acculturative stress was measured by assessing the stressfulness of the upcoming migration. Participants were asked to rate the severity of this event compared to other stressful events and situations in their lives. The introductory question by Aldwin and Revenson (1987) (“How stressful would you rate…”) was followed by three (sample 1) to five (sample 2) items (e.g., Leaving your home country/present country of residence/Russia; entering Finland; upcoming adaptation in Finland) developed to suit the context of this study. A seven-point scale (1 = not severe at all to 7 = most severe event I have faced) developed by Terry (1994) was employed, with higher scores indicating more stress.

Self-efficacy (Studies I and II). Self-efficacy was assessed using the Russian version (Schwarzer, Jerusalem, & Romek, 1996) of the 10-item Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995). The scale assesses optimistic self-beliefs used for coping with a variety of difficult demands in life and explicitly refers to personal agency (i.e., a belief that successful outcomes are due to one's own actions) (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). Participants answered the questions using a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree),with higher scores indicating higher self-efficacy.

Self-esteem (Study IV). To measure global self-esteem, we used a measure by Rosenberg (1965). Participants rated 10 statements (e.g., “I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on equal plane with others.”) on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, with higher scores indicating better self-esteem.

Cultural identifications (Study I). To measure participants’ cultural identifications, two existing measures were combined and modified: Mlicki and Ellemers’s (1996) national identity measure, as well as Phinney and Devich-Navarro’s (1997) American identity measure. The two six-item subscales measured the degree of respondents’ (Ingrian) Finnish identification and Russian identification, containing both cognitive (e.g. “I consider myself as an (Ingrian) Finn/a Russian”) and affective (e.g. “I am proud of being an (Ingrian) Finn/a Russian”) components. The response options ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, with higher scores indicating stronger identification.

European identification (Study IV). To measure participants’ European identification, we applied Mlicki and Ellemers’s (1996) identity measure. A five-item scale measured the

degree of European identification with both cognitive (e.g., “I see myself as a representative of…”) and affective (e.g., “I am glad that I belong to…”) components. The response options ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, with higher scores indicating stronger identification.

Organizational identification (Study IV). To measure organizational identification, a five- item measure by Mael and Ashforth (1992) was modified to fit the context (e.g., “If a story in the media criticized the Chemical Agency, I would feel embarrassed”). The response options ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, with higher scores indicating stronger identification.

Multicultural ideology (Study I). Participants’ support for a multicultural ideology was assessed using a modified version of Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver’s (2003) adaptation of the multicultural ideology scale originally developed by Berry and Kalin (1995). The scale included items such as “Immigrant parents must encourage their children to retain the culture and traditions of their homeland.” Items 6 and 10 of the original scale were omitted from the scale as they had been shown to have poor loadings in previous studies (e.g., Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2003; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006). Participants used a five-point scale to indicate the degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement (1 = strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree), with higher scores indicating strong support for multicultural ideology. Pre-migration acculturation orientations (Study I). To measure participants’ acculturation orientations, a measure previously used by Rohmann et al. (2006; see also Zagefka & Brown, 2002) was modified. Participants’ attitudes towards cultural maintenance were measured by a three-item subscale (i.e., “I think it is important that immigrants from Russia to Finland maintain their culture in Finland”; “I think immigrants from Russia to Finland should maintain their own religion, language and traditions in Finland”; “I think it is important that immigrants from Russia to Finland maintain their own way of living in Finland”), with response options ranging from 1 = low desire for culture maintenance to 5 = high desire for cultural maintenance. The participants’ attitudes towards contact with hosts after immigration were also measured on a three-item scale (e.g., “I think it is important that immigrants from Russia to Finland have Finnish friends”; “I think it is important that immigrants from Russia to Finland also spend time with Finns during their free time.”), with response options ranging from 1 = low desire for contact to 5 = high desire for contact. The third, reversed item (“I think that immigrants from Russia to Finland should stick to their own kind”), however, was excluded from the subscale because of its negative correlations with the other two items (r = - .19, p < .001; r = -.18, p < .01) and, consequently, a substantially decreased Cronbach’s alpha (for a similar solution, see Zagefka & Brown 2002).

Perceived acculturation expectations (Study I). Participants were asked to indicate their perceptions of the acculturation expectations of the members of the receiving society (i.e., their subjective perceptions of the kind of behaviour that Finns expect from immigrants from Russia to Finland). The scale was identical to that measuring the migrants’ own pre-migration acculturation attitudes, but this time the participants reported what they believed a typical Finn would answer.

Outgroup attitudes (Study IV). To measure outgroup attitudes, Verkuyten’s (2007b) feeling thermometer was applied. Participants rated their feelings towards Finns on a scale ranging from 0 = very cold to 100 = very warm.

Anticipated socio-cultural adaptation (ASCA) (Studies II and III). Participants’ expectations of the socio-cultural difficulties they would face after migration were measured by modifying the socio-cultural adaptation scale (SCAS; Ward & Kennedy, 1999) to fit the pre-migration context. Of the 29 original scale items, 26 were presented (e.g., ease of making friends, finding food to enjoy; see Table 1 in the original publication III for the whole list of the items presented). Participants rated the anticipated difficulty of different aspects of life in Finland on five-point scale with higher scores reflecting greater social difficulty (i.e., poorer anticipated socio-cultural adaptation). A composed score of ASCA items was used.

The SCAS has previously been used unidimensionally (e.g., Ward et al., 1998) or bidimensionally (i.e., cognitive and behavioural aspects of socio-cultural adaptation; e.g., Swagler & Jome, 2005) in the post-migration context only (for use among short-term sojourners before assignments, see Ward & Kennedy, 1996). Therefore it was necessary to reinvestigate its structure in the context of this study. Factor analysis (maximum likelihood, varimax rotation) revealed four meaningful factors with eigenvalues greater than one: interpersonal relations (e.g., communicating with Finns, making friends), cognitive understanding (e.g., understanding Finnish value system, understanding the Finnish world view), impersonal perils (e.g., finding food that you enjoy, going shopping), and dealing with bureaucracy (e.g., dealing with the authorities, following rules and regulations). These factors explained 59.3 per cent of the total variance. For the purpose of the following analyses, factor scores for each factor were computed.

Cultural novelty (Study III). Using a modified version of the culture novelty measure introduced by Torbiörn (1982; see also Black & Stephens, 1989), participants were asked to rate how similar (1 = very similar to 5 = very different) Russia and Finland were in four cultural aspects. Work culture was added to the original items (everyday customs, and general living conditions and costs). Due to weak correlations with other items, an original item regarding climate was left out.

Perceived (cultural) similarity (Studies I and III). Using a modified perceived cultural similarity scale (Piontkowski et al., 2000; Rohmann et al., 2006), participants were asked to rate on five-point scale (1 = very similar to 5 = very dissimilar) how different or similar they perceived Russia and Finland to be in five different domains (general similarity, culture, mentality, family life and gender roles).

Personal values (Studies I and III). Values were measured with the 21-item European Social Survey (ESS; Jowell et al., 2003) version of the Portrait values questionnaire (PVQ; Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann, Burgess, Harris, & Owens, 2001) based on descriptions of different people, whose goals, aspirations and wishes are characterized in two sentences. For example, “It is important to him/her to show his/her abilities. S/he wants people to admire what s/he does," measures the achievement value. The PVQ was administered in self-rating format (1 = not like me at all to 5 = like me). In order to control for individual variation in

scale use, in Study III each item was divided by the mean of all items before the ten basic values were computed as averages of the relevant items (Schwartz, 1992), and further categorized into four higher-order value priorities. As the hedonism value (2 items)—located between the openness to change and the self-enhancement poles—does not clearly fit to any of the four higher order value types (see the chapter 5.3.6.2), it was left out of further analysis. In regards to the results of Study I, values were used without centering.However, the analysis was also conducted using centered values, to make sure that it did not have any effect on the results obtained.

Perceived values of a typical Finn (Study III). Participants were asked to indicate their perceptions of the values of a typical Finn with the same PVQ that was used to measure the migrants’ own values, but this time the participants reported what they believed a typical Finn would answer.

Perceived value congruence (Study III). The value profiles, based on the ten basic values, were used to compute an index of perceived value similarity between participants’ personal values and their perceptions of values held by a typical Finn. As the elevation of the values profile is thought to reflect response bias (Schwartz, 1992), only the shape of the profile matters in the assessment of the similarity between two values profiles, making the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between two profiles an appropriate statistic. Before correlating the profiles within participants, they were standardized between participants, thus controlling for those elements common to all ratings (Cronbach, 1955). Fisher’s r to Z transformation was used before the correlation coefficients were entered into any analyses. High scores on the resulting index of value congruence reflect high-perceived similarity.

Social support (Study II). To measure perceived available support in general, two subscales of the English version of the Berlin social support scale (BSSS) by Schwarzer and Schulz (2000) were used. These (four-item) subscales measured emotional (e.g., “Whenever I am not feeling well, other people show me that they are fond of me”) and instrumental support (e.g., “When everything becomes too much for me to handle, others are there to help me”). Participants responded on a five-point scale (1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived social support.

Satisfaction with relocation preparations (Study IV). To measure satisfaction with relocation preparations, a measure by Forster (2000) was modified. Participants were asked to evaluate the sufficiency of time, information and assistance received to prepare for their relocation on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all enough to 5 = more than enough.

Perceived organizational prestige (Study IV). To assess perceived organizational prestige, six items of the perceived organizational prestige measure developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992) were modified for this study. Participants were asked to indicate their perceptions of feelings and attitudes that other people or organizations might have about ECHA (e.g., “The Chemicals Agency is considered one of the best agencies of the EU”). The participants rated statements on a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived prestige.